Reply
Fri 1 Jan, 2016 10:59 pm
With the primary election right around the corner, it’s time for some thoughtful consideration for picking the nominee for our party strategically, but also for turning seats at the state and federal level blue. Popular economist, author, and former Labor Secretary for Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, says there’s still a lot of work to do on both these fronts.
First on the list is picking a strong candidate for our own party’s presidential nominee.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to have it in the bag, but then again, in polling match-ups with other Republicans, she’s barely scraping by — and with other GOP picks she’s losing in the hypothetical matchups. She has a scary unfavorability rating. Not to mention several past misgivings (no matter how rooted they are in Imaginationland) that the GOP nominee will smear her for. And does she represent the liberal faction of the Democratic party? Many liberals don’t think so and promise they will not vote for her come general election. Though, I assume the majority will vote for her if she becomes the nominee, because anything is better than a Republican.
And Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has shown great momentum in his campaign, but do his liberal views, alienate moderate Democrats? In polling match-ups, he fares considerably well against Donald Trump, but with other GOP candidates, it’s a mixed bag. He has high trustworthiness and honesty poll numbers — people have warmed to his style of campaign. He’s a political brawler and has no problem taking on politicians who don’t represent the best interests of Americans. But given the right wing’s increasing animosity towards anything liberal or “socialist” will they show up in record numbers this election to make sure a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist doesn’t become President? While Bernie Sanders polls surprisingly well with Republicans, there are those who won’t be swayed.
Both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses that we need to mull over before the primary election to pick the best candidate strategically to win the general. Clinton has high poll numbers and debates strongly; Sanders knows how to rile up independents, millennials, seniors, and ultra-liberals. In my opinion, they’re both viable candidates for their own reasons.
But while the nation’s Democrats and liberals are distracted by their own primary picks and the insanity of Donald Trump, are we becoming too overly confident that the crazy coming from the right means we’ve already won?
Robert Reich thinks so. In a Facebook post, he says:
“As we slouch toward a critically -important election year, Democrats are expressing a degree of confidence bordering on smugness, and that makes me worry. This morning I got an email from a key Democratic operative. ‘The Republicans are showing America how nuts they are,’ he writes. ‘With Trump, Cruz, or even Rubio they can’t possibly win the presidency. They’ve turned off Latinos, women, blacks, young people, older people. Odds are they’ll also lose the Senate. Maybe even the House.’ “
It’s fair to say a lot of what’s coming from the right wing is “nuts,” and it’s fair to say the GOP has turned many people off. Their consistent lack of sensitivity to police killings of African-Americans has even young conservatives leaving the party, their anti-Planned Parenthood views turn off women, and mass- and self-deportation isn’t popular among Hispanics.
But their crazy dominates the airwaves, they snag headlines and it doesn’t turn off right-leaning voters in the least bit — they love the crazy from their party. And don’t forget they have majorities in Congress, and they are thirsty to dominate the Executive branch to unhobble their party and not fear the inevitable veto their insane bills bring. Not to mention the future Supreme Court nominations that could lead to a stronger conservative majority so they could fight to end gay marriage and abortion in this country.
Robert Reich says:
“This is dangerous hubris. In 2014, Republicans won their biggest House majority in Congress in almost a century, and most of the winners are every bit as conservative as the current candidates for president. Republicans also control 32 governorships, including deep-blue states like Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Under President Obama, Democrats have also lost more than 900 state legislative seats. Not to mention the current right-wing Republican majority on the Supreme Court.”
I remember the disastrous 2014 midterm. I, of course, voted knowing I would not be joined by many other Democrats. There were several factors that lead to the disastrous midterm election in 2014 — Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s ineffective leadership was encouraging Democratic candidates to distance themselves from President Obama, the lack of voter turnout, the kind of apathy that comes when your party’s president is in office, and some **** awful, boring Democratic candidates. The field of hardline conservative candidates promising to oppose anything Democrat was ripe, they dominated headlines, they promised their constituents the moon, and they swept that election and took control of the Senate.
Robert Reich and I are in complete agreement on this next point:
“Anyone who thinks the next election is going to be easy for Democrats and progressives is kidding themselves. Republicans are digging in — with gerrymandered districts, voter ID laws, and every other possible means of keeping their congressional and state majorities, and taking the presidency. Even if Donald Trump gets the nomination, it’s going to be an uphill fight. Which means you and I and everyone we know who understands the damage being done by the extreme right — and by the growing concentration of income, wealth, and political power in the hands of a very few — will have to work like hell.”
The party who has been out of power is the thirstiest. They WILL show up to vote for whoever becomes the GOP nominee — it’s looking like Donald Trump. And while I trust that Donald Trump is probably the worst strategic candidate of the lot, I don’t discount his ability to rile up his base. Right wing voters are voting, this time, to “punish” liberal Democrats for perceived infractions against their party from the Obama Administration.
We need a person who gets Democrats to the voting booth. We cannot be apathetic this election, and if we are, we deserve to watch the next person undo every progressive policy implemented by President Obama.
The crazy coming from the right should scare you, not make you overconfident. For minorities and women and the working and middle class, we need to turn congressional seats blue, we need Democratic governors, we need to equalize our state legislatures. It’s about more than just the presidency; it’s about giving Democratic Representatives and Senators voting sway again.
@edgarblythe,
Interesting. Not all republicans are rich - or even middle class. Wonder of wonders of modern politics.
@edgarblythe,
Anybody (of any political stripe) who thinks the election is over when it's still 10 months away can buy a bridge I'm selling.
@jespah,
I will take your bridge, Jespah. How much are you asking?
Hillary will be our next president. I wish it weren't so, but it will happen.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:Even if Donald Trump gets the nomination, it’s going to be an uphill fight. Which means you and I and everyone we know who understands the damage being done by the extreme right — and by the growing concentration of income, wealth, and political power in the hands of a very few — will have to work like hell.”
The party who has been out of power is the thirstiest. They WILL show up to vote for whoever becomes the GOP nominee — it’s looking like Donald Trump. And while I trust that Donald Trump is probably the worst strategic candidate of the lot, I don’t discount his ability to rile up his base. Right wing voters are voting, this time, to “punish” liberal Democrats for perceived infractions against their party from the Obama Administration.
yup yup and yup
I don't think this is going to be a gimme.
@maxdancona,
Can I buy into that bridge deal with you?
An Hillary is far better then the other choices we are being offer.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe (quoting Robert Reich) wrote:
"There were several factors that lead to the disastrous midterm election in 2014 —Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s ineffective leadership was encouraging Democratic candidates to distance themselves from President Obama, the lack of voter turnout, the kind of apathy that comes when your party’s president is in office, and some **** awful, boring Democratic candidates. The field of hardline conservative candidates promising to oppose anything Democrat was ripe, they dominated headlines, they promised their constituents the moon, and they swept that election and took control of the Senate."
Reich fails to mention what is perhaps the biggest factor in Republican takeover of the House and Senate: a concerted effort, funded by conservative billionaires, to win state legislature seats for the purpose of controlling the state committees that oversee the redistricting process (that is, the map of federal voting districts in their state). By gerrymandering congressional districts they managed to seize a large number of seats.
Rachel Maddow actually interviewed a Republican activist who was deeply involved in the Red State Project and he spoke freely about it. It's amazing how underreported this story is:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/how-the-gop-gave-itself-a-ten-year-advantage-407234115988
@puzzledperson,
P.S. Here's the correct organizational name:
"...Republican State Leadership Committee had started a project that they called the Redistricting Majority Project or Red Map for short..."
I gave a link to the video above but here's the program transcript:
http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2015-03-02
The easy way to get to the relevant section after clicking on the link is to do a find-on-page search for "red map". Maddow's explanatory lead-in comments are as valuable as the interview that follows.
Actually, after the 2013 gun control debacle, the Republicans are the party that is virtually guaranteed to win in 2016.
@oralloy,
Actually, Obama's executive action against guns may bring a horde of traditionally non-voting country boys into the polls against Hillary. She's stated she'll also go unilateral against guns.
Bad timing on Obama.
@oralloy,
I love it when you make predictions that are so easy to disprove. In just 11 months you will be proven indubitably wrong about guns.
@Lash,
I think Hillary asked Obama to do this. And, I think it is a winning strategy. Push the Republicans to the right on another issue. She will get the chance to explain why she has the common sense approach.
@Lash,
The executive action has to do with background checks. How that will bring hordes of non-voting country boys to the polls is a lie.
@maxdancona,
It also puts Sanders in a tricky position with democrats, he is sort of whishy washy on gun regulations, or at least he appears that way. On the other hand, Lash might be right in the general. Kind of hard to tell how that will play out.
Regardless, it was and is the right thing to do.
@Lash,
Lash wrote:Actually, Obama's executive action against guns may bring a horde of traditionally non-voting country boys into the polls against Hillary. She's stated she'll also go unilateral against guns.
Bad timing on Obama.
At this point they are doomed anyway, but it does boggle the mind that they want to advertise how much they hate our freedom just before an election.
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:I love it when you make predictions that are so easy to disprove. In just 11 months you will be proven indubitably wrong about guns.
The American people LIKE freedom. The Democrats' efforts to destroy our freedom is an easy win for Republicans.
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:I think Hillary asked Obama to do this. And, I think it is a winning strategy. Push the Republicans to the right on another issue. She will get the chance to explain why she has the common sense approach.
The Democrats siding with the 9/11 hijackers in their hatred of America's freedom is far from a winning strategy.
@oralloy,
Show evidence that the democrats sided with the 9/11 hijackers?
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:It also puts Sanders in a tricky position with democrats, he is sort of whishy washy on gun regulations, or at least he appears that way. On the other hand, Lash might be right in the general. Kind of hard to tell how that will play out.
As far as I'm concerned, Sanders likes to violate the Second Amendment for fun.
revelette2 wrote:Regardless, it was and is the right thing to do.
Civil rights violations are NEVER the right thing to do. The Democrats' hatred of America's freedom is abhorrent.